Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    January 2, 2012 12:31am-1:01am PST

12:31 am
departments to carry out any of its powers and duties, so i imagine that to the extent and expenditure is appropriated, it has to be something that is within the powers and duties of the mta, but this is what it says -- it says, "any such contract shall establish performance standards for the department providing the service to the agency, including measurable standards for the quality, timeliness, and cost of the services provided." in your review, did you find whether or not the mta had created measurable standards for the services provided by these departments? >> in reviewing, we were not specifically looking through the mou's to ensure that there
12:32 am
were performance standards as we were looking for exactly what the services where -- what were they required to render and where they basically based on the invoices of the supporting documentation? could they support these costs based on what was written in the mou? supervisor campos: did the mou's include performance standards? >> i do not recall, and i will look. supervisor campos: that is a very important question because clearly, it is what the charter mandates. do we have a copy of a sample mou? i wonder if we could get that as we continue this discussion to see if those performance standards are actually in there. thank you. president chiu. supervisor chiu: i think you covered the big question i had, which is that i certainly appreciate the work you have
12:33 am
done on this audit to get at some of the details of whether the work orders were complied with, but from my perspective, we are focusing on details and not the big picture. the concern many of us had is whether these services ought to be paid for by the mta, not whether or not the terms were complied with and internal controls were complied with. it is a higher level question of whether that is an appropriate thing, how relevant the services were to moving forward to the transit first policy. i wanted get your understanding of what it would take to understand that. is that work you would be able to do? i have, for several years, tried to understand what value we are getting for the $60 million. is that money that could be better used in other places? i just have not felt like i have gotten a good answer to that. i do not feel like this audit helps to clarify that the question. i feel like we have focused on
12:34 am
the trees and off the force. >> you are absolutely right. this audit was not designed to answer that question. -- i feel like we have focused on the trees and not the forest. >> we would be more than happy to look at the -- addressing the larger picture that you have brought forward today. what we would have to do is work with the mta to determine the scope of a more detailed review to look at that question, to answer that question, and then to determine the time frame in getting it to our work plan. myself and the controller will work with director reiskin to insure that this happens and we will get back to you to discuss what the timeframe would be. supervisor chiu: thank you.
12:35 am
supervisor campos: i think that is the next step the four we hear from the mta. i think we need to build more into the question not so much of whether or not there are mou's that are being complied with but whether or not the expenditure is appropriate -- i think we need to delve more into the question. it might be helpful to narrow the focus of your review on the top 10 departments, for instance. that might be one way of delving into it more deeply without it being so, you know, challenging. that might be one approach that we take. how long would it take for you to do that kind of review? >> i do not have a timeframe. one thing i will say is once we have collaborated, we will
12:36 am
definitely make it a priority and propose a timeframe and determine if it works. supervisor campos: you have an agency that is facing a deficit, a multi-million deficit for this year and even more next year. there's talk about increasing fees and fines. at some point, there might be a fare increase. before we go down that road of actually charging the riders, the consumers more to use the system, we need to get a better handle on whether or not the money we do have is being spent well. it does worry me that we have not looked at whether or not some of these expenditures are connected to transportation, whether or not it is really appropriate. $62 million is a lot of money. even if you had a 10% reduction,
12:37 am
that is $6 million you could use to improve service for the writershipped -- the ridership. i think that is something we need to look at. it does worry me that we do not know for sure if these mou's -- putting aside the question of whether the expenditure is appropriate -- it seems we still have a question about the mou's themselves. we should know whether or not performance standards are in them. that is what the charter requires. it is worrisome that we do not know that right off the bat. unless we have any other questions, why don't we hear from the mta? >> thank you. supervisor campos: i want to welcome sonali bose.
12:38 am
let me just say that ed reiskin, the director of transportation for the city and county of san francisco, was going to be here and was planning to be here, but unfortunately, he had a last-minute family emergency. i want to acknowledge that and wish him well. i know that he will continue to work with us on these issues. it is for that reason that he is not here. >> thank you, supervisors appear the director wanted to make sure we apologize on his behalf -- thank you, supervisors. the director wanted to make sure that we apologize on his behalf. this is the overall picture of our budget for fiscal year 2012. we have a $780 million budget.
12:39 am
$68 million goes to services, and $62 million -- supervisor campos: do you have any other copies of the presentation? that is okay. we will see it on the screen. >> i think copies were sent to your offices. we have five different kinds of work orders, and there has been difficulty understanding them because they are different kinds of work orders. first time we pay are the facilities and power, and those are bent, utilities, i.t., and telecom services -- those are rent, utilities, i.t., and telecom services. we have department services, where the department is a mandated provider by charter. for example, the charter makes the city attorney the mandatory legal services provider for the city, so we must pay legal services. the next one is the group of
12:40 am
department services, which are discretionary services. we could do these internally, but we decided to work order these in the past. the last is a discussion about the policy nexus, and this surrounds traffic enforcement. the presentation -- could we get it on screen, please? supervisor campos: here we go. >> ok, great. this is a summary of our work orders from 2006 and 2007. the increase has been about $19 million, and these line items are what the changes have been. the biggest change has been in our facilities/power line item.
12:41 am
the next is a city function allocation of 9.2. we have seen some increases in department of services where the department has been a mentor provider and its discretionary services. there has been an increase in the policy nexus' group. here is a description of the line items. the biggest has been rent at one south van ness, the event we are paying, and also the department of technology infrastructure. we are being charged for our cost of infrastructure for the department technology, and the puc power costs have gone up, and that is mainly due to our usage. this does not be -- this does not incorporate the potential increase. the next group where the department is the mandatory
12:42 am
provider, we have an increase there, so tax collector services have gone down $1 million. but the purchasing, reproduction, mail, audit, and taxi force have seen increases, as you can see on this side. the city fund allocation, the biggest increase has been the charge to us as well as policing the response team. we have seen some increases. like all city departments and the risk management category, and then we have seen the next area -- about $600,000 increase in police traffic. the next group for discretionary services for dpw. the changes between fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012, we saw about a $1.6 million
12:43 am
increase. the detail of those line items are shown in this slide. the biggest one has been for the controller's office and for the puc, for the facilities of power based on our usage. 311 has grown about $8 million. the rest are minor increases. the biggest decline is in the police department. we reduced the police work order. we also reduced the tax collector work order because they are no longer collecting on the taxi permits. lastly, we had a reduction in the city attorney's office. we have been able to move costs into the capital budget. these are next steps that we
12:44 am
want to work on -- supervisor chiu: could i ask a couple of questions? these will be some tough questions, and i just want the public to know that i have tremendous respect for what ms. bose does, but what i was hoping for the presentation is to understand how the $60 million is used department by department. you have shown us the difference in spending over the last few years and the marginal changes in how things are being spent and what the marginal changes will be between this fiscal year and next fiscal year, but not overall what we are spending category by category. what are the accountability metrics that we hope to achieve? how is this moving forward? i do not see that. >> you are right. that is not on this slide. the first part of the question is easy because we can break down the $62 million. the second part, the accountability issues, is a little more difficult. some of the mou's have
12:45 am
performance measures. but for example, if the department is obligated to perform services for us, it is a mandatory service -- by charter, we are obligated to use the city attorney for services and pay them for services. we, the mta, do not have enough expertise or skill set to determine whether the legal services are, you know -- those are the kinds of questions you are getting too, and, you are right. it is a difficult conversation. hopefully we can answer some of those questions going forward, but that is some of the heart of the issue of the discussion. supervisor chiu: we have been having this conversation for as long as i have been here on the board. >> as long as i have been here. supervisor chiu: we debate what
12:46 am
that number is supposed to be, and yet, for me, it is still a bit of a black hole. what is the plan to really get at this? >> i think we have a slide here. the next two slides kind of get to what the next steps are and what the director is committed to doing. first of all, continued to improve oversight with the performance metric -- supervisor campos: can we get an answer to the question that i asked the controller? are there performance standards in the mou's as required by the charter? >> some have them and some do not. sometimes, we have difficulty getting that information from certain departments. supervisor campos: maybe that is a question for the city attorney.
12:47 am
my reading, if you do not have performance standards, the expenditure is not allowed under the charter. so it may be that you have spent money out of compliance with the charter if you do not have those performance standards. do you know which mou's do not have performance standards? >> the majority of them do not. supervisor campos: you are spending $12 million with the police apartment. does the mou have performance standards? >> the police department mou is probably the strongest in terms of them providing reports. the police department is probably the strongest. i do not know if the reports have been provided in a way that we can assess the quality of services. i think the director of our security is the project manager,
12:48 am
so he could probably speak better to the quality of reporting. supervisor campos: if the majority of contracts do not have performance standards, then you are out of compliance. ok. >> the next is the value of discretionary services and bring them in-house rather than have department do it or looking at potentially private-sector contracts. and the third bullet really looks at whether we need the service or not. some of the services we may have gotten -- for example, the tax department is now under the mta. we no longer need the support from the other departments. this next one is another we are looking at, accounting mechanism. for example, some of the ways that these are allocated are by head counts. take for example, e-mail accounts. the majority of the m.t.a.
12:49 am
workforce does not have e-mail accounts, but we are still being asked to pay. the basics of the allocation need to be reviewed. we are also looking at cost recovery. the mta historically provided services to departments that have not initiated mou's on our end, so we have not had discussion with those departments. the next one is a means of procuring service within government outside of the core competency. that goes to purchasing and what is the mta's core competency, and how we evaluate the service. most of the work orders are formed with respect to services where the flexibility of our ability to negotiate some of these things depends on the accounting mechanism and performance metrics. as we all know, they all need to be managed well. let me say, in closing, i have
12:50 am
been here for five years. we have come a long way, but there is still some way to go. the bigger issue you are talking about is the overall policy discussion. i think the mayor's office and the other departments and mta all need the board of supervisors to participate in it. supervisor campos: has the mta given any direction as to when a work order is appropriate? >> all the mou's go to the mta board for approval, so they are approved during that time. they have asked us to manage the mou's better. there is nothing formally written, but there has been concerned about managing the more effectively. supervisor campos: who has the final say about whether something is inappropriate for a quarter? >> after the mta board approves
12:51 am
the mou, that is our authority to execute the work order and when we execute it, that is our authority for those services. supervisor campos: but the board has not said as a general matter of policy that they should only spend money on a certain kind of services? >> i think they rely on the charter language that you read as a guidance. i think they know it exists and it is within their oversight to manage. supervisor campos: so they actually reference the charter when they talk about it? >> i cannot say specifically i have heard them mention it, but i think they do understand the charter requirements. supervisor campos: let me ask a question to the city attorney's office. again, these questions are tough questions. they are not directed at any single individual.
12:52 am
but you had -- you just heard the cfo of the mta say that a majority of the mou's from her perspective do not have performance standards. you have the charter specifically saying that any contract shall establish performance standards. that, to me, seems that we are out of compliance with the charter. do you have any thoughts on what that means? >> we came here with -- in mind of the audit itself. this question's really were not addressed in the audit. we have not been asked to look at the adequacy of the mou's with respect to the charter language you referenced. we would be happy to look at that, but that is not a question we have looked at. supervisor campos: question on the mou's -- are those reviewed by counsel? >> that are not considered under
12:53 am
the charter. it really addresses procedural issues. we fulfil our duties as provided under the charter itself, but mou's are not considered contracts. we do not approve them as we would a contract. supervisor campos: that is interesting because the section of the charter that deals with these contracts specifically says that the agency may contract with existing city departments. and then it talks about how those contracts must include the performance standards.
12:54 am
and then, subsection f actually talks about the city attorney's office and the controller's office. it is interesting that the agency has not requested legal counsel review of those things. >> we have, as i say, look at particular issues as to particular mou's, but we have not considered them to be contracts requiring approval in the way that we would for others, for contracts with third parties. supervisor campos: maybe that is something that should change going forward, given that the charter does specifically say there have to be performance standards embedded in these contracts. >> that is something we could look at. supervisor campos: is it possible to also look at the issue of what the appropriate nexus between an expenditure and
12:55 am
the duties and powers of the mta is? >> we are happy to do that. it may be an initiative difficult to address in the abstract. there are a lot of services required to support the agency in the performance of its duties. some of those are provided by private third parties. some of those are provided by other city departments. it may be something that is an easier question to address in terms of specifics, but we are happy to take a look at it. supervisor campos: the question, for instance, that i asked the mayor was -- is it appropriate, does it make sense that the mta out of its budget is funding the motorcycle unit of the police department? right? let me be clear -- i believe the motorcycle unit is a very important one and plays an important function and should be funded appropriately. the question is whether or not
12:56 am
it should come out of muni's budget. we did not really get a response. from your estimation, would something like that be inappropriate expenditure? is there enough of a nexus between that and what the mta budget should pay for? >> honestly, i do not begin to know the facts well enough to make a judgment about that. supervisor campos: ok, thank you. president chiu, other questions? ok, why don't we open up to public comment again? i want to thank the controller's office and the agency -- before we do that, i do not know if there is anyone from the mayor's office who would like to say anything about this item. why don't we go to public comment? anyone from the public who would like to speak on this item, please come forward. but let me read a few names. [reading names]
12:57 am
please come forward. please come forward. you each have two minutes, and we have translation available if needed. please come forward. thank you. >> hello. i am staff at the ec commission office -- at the east commission office. our officers have recorded some video, it, which i will play for you right now. -- our officers have recorded some video comment, which i will play for you right now. if i could have this microphone
12:58 am
on by the speaker. supervisor campos: is the sound on? >> work orders and how they affect young people. to give you some background on myself, i grew up -- good morning, supervisors. share of the san francisco youth commission, wanting to speak on your item and work orders and how they affect young people. to give you some background on myself, i grew up in the west. -- i grew up riding the bus. i know the impact it has on the lives of the youth. how to work orders affect -- how
12:59 am
do work orders affect youth? they serve our city, and as soon as we improve the efficiencies, i hope to provide funds for really wonderful programs like muni that we can make sure get kids to school and home safely. i encourage you guys to think about these work orders and think about how they can improve the lives of the city and its residents and its young people. thank you and have a really nice rest of your day. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker. >> i'm on the youth commission. i have seen the divisions that can happen between kids when
1:00 am
they are identified by social class. we want to have a more united generation of young people, no matter what their socio-economic status. it allows us to bypass implementation issues that plagued the lifeline passed last time. it would encourage people to use more public transportation, which is very much in line with san francisco's environmental goal. in conclusion, it encourages a more united, greener generation of san franciscans. thank you very much. >> i am a mayoral appointee on the youth commission. i go to san francisco school of the arts. muni is a big part of my life. it is my main method of transportation. i take it to school, meetings, to work, and everything.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on